Re: ITP seahorse
This is exactly what I do NOT want. Calling the image "US domestic" would
lead to CD makers in the US incorrectly pressing that version. No one
really wants to press the US-exportable version at all! US vendors really
want the non-US version for domestic sale, and non-US vendors really want
the non-US version for sale everywhere. The only reason the US-exportable
version exists is for electronic mirrors within the US. There are no
restrictions against the use of encryption within the US, and the domestic
version produced by US vendors should include it.
This state of affairs is precisely why we find these regulations so
maddeningly stupid in the US. We cannot sell something to the rest of the
world (a CD) which is (a) freely available outside the US and (b) imported
into the US from outside in the first place. US vendors could choose to
press the US-exportable version for sale to foreign countries, but no one
in their right mind would buy such a thing, since the complete version
would be available from every vendor outside the US.
There have been recent changes in US regulations, but there are still just
enough restrictions to cause grief and prevent, say, Internet posting.
Under the new regulations, for example, we are theoretically allowed to
post encryption code on the Internet as long as we prevent it from being
downloaded to Libya and other such places, which is obviously impossible.
Even more stupid, if I give a restricted data file to a person in a
country which is not on the prohibited list, such as Russia -- a nation
which presumably still has nuclear missiles pointed at us and we at them
-- and that person exports the data file to Libya, then I am innocent of
violating US law unless I have actual knowledge of the intent to
circumvent US export restrictions. In fact, if a person in Libya signs up
for a shell account in Russia, and downloads my file to the machine in
Russia as an intermediate step before copying it to his machine in Libya,
then I am still in the clear unless I know this is what he plans to do.
What is going on here is that the laws which might be perfectly reasonable
when applied to the export of, say, fissionable material become reduced to
absurdity when applied to the export of data files.
On 2000-05-24 at 13:26 +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> If it's not a stupid idea, can't we have symlinks to the same image
> with names "US Domestic" and "Non-US", with an explanation that they
> are the same for anyone who wants to read the explanation?